With all the social and political issues coming at us these days, it is important that we get back to first principles. Here are a few biblical principles that should inform how we respond to current issues.

First is the sanctity of human life. Verses such as Psalm 139:13-16 show that God’s care and concern extend to the womb. Other verses such as Jeremiah 1:5, Judges 13:7-8, Psalm 51:5 and Exodus 21:22–25 give additional perspective and framework to this principle that applies to many areas of bioethics.

A second principle is a biblical perspective on marriage. Marriage is God’s plan and provides intimate companionship for life (Genesis 2:18). Marriage provides a context for the procreation and nurture of children (Ephesians 6:1-2). And finally, marriage provides a godly outlet for sexual desire (1 Corinthians 7:2). These principles can be applied to such diverse issues as artificial reproduction (which often introduces a third party into the pregnancy), cohabitation (living together), and same-sex marriage.

A final principle concerns government and our obedience to civil authority. Government is ordained by God (Rom.13:1-7). We are to render service and obedience to the government (Matt. 22:21) and submit to civil authority (1 Pet. 2:13-17). Even though we are to obey government, there may be certain times when we might be forced to obey God rather than men (Acts 5:29). These principles apply to issues such as war, civil disobedience, politics, and government.

Every day, it seems, we are confronted with ethical choices and moral complexity. I address these in more detail in my book. Christian Ethics in Plain Language. As Christians it is important to consider these biblical principles and consistently apply them to these issues.

Atheism is on the rise, which is why Christians need to know how to respond to many of the arguments put forward by the so-called New Atheists. There is energy and confidence in their presentations. But Dr. Andy Bannister (Canadian Director of Ravi Zacharias Ministries) says we shouldn’t be cowed by these atheist arguments.

He responds to these arguments in this new book, The Atheist Who Didn’t Exist: Or the Dreadful Consequences of Bad Arguments. He was on my radio program recently to explain how many of the arguments quickly unravel. His book uses logic and lots of humor to expose some of the loose threads on the cardigan of atheism.

Atheist Richard Dawkins talks about a young child who believes that Thomas the Tank Train really exists, and she also believes in Father Christmas. From there he (and other atheists) argues that belief in God is like belief in Santa Claus. There are lots of problems with the argument, but an obvious one can be seen in the belief systems of young adults. None of them believe in Santa Claus. Millions of them believe in God.

Atheists also like to argue that their atheism isn’t a claim: it’s a non-belief. Religious people have a belief system. Atheists do not. That means atheists are free to sit back and throw stones at religious ideas. The trouble with that assertion is it proves too much. Andy Bannister says that would mean his cat is an atheist because she does not believe in God. Moreover, atheists claim their belief is true, and that is a positive claim. They really do have a belief system, and that causes all sorts of action. Internet-dwelling atheists spend hundreds of hours trolling, posting, and arguing. They buy books, T-shirts, and bumper stickers. That’s a whole lot of activity for a non-belief.

I know you will enjoy reading Andy Bannister as he blends humor with serious thought while showing the fallacies of atheist arguments.

Taking a stand for traditional marriage can be bad for business. Chick-fil-A found this out. Liberal mayors don’t want these restaurants in their city. And they were nearly shut out of the Denver airport, until common sense began to prevail.

Chick-fil-A left the Denver airport years ago and then applied to return. It was one of the most popular food concessions. But they weren’t popular with a few members of the city council. One councilman argued: “we can do better than this brand in Denver at our airport, in my estimation.” A councilwoman feared that the chain would use its profits “to fund and fuel discrimination.” They were willing to send Chick-fil-A packing even though one study predicted the restaurant would generate more than $4 million in sales and put over $600,000 a year in the city coffers.

Approval for Chick-fil-A should have been a simple process, but a few city council members resisted because they disagreed with the company’s “business practices.” What might those be? Back in 2012 its now-CEO Dan Cathy supported traditional marriage and opposed same-sex marriage. Can you imagine if a conservative member of the city council (assuming there is one) opposed Starbucks because its founder supports same-sex marriage? Imagine the intolerance.

Fortunately, cooler heads prevailed. But it wasn’t because the city council members backed down. Denver attorneys in a closed-door meeting warned that barring a business on the basis of political prejudice would result in a First Amendment lawsuit they would most likely lose. Also, there was the issue of race. Chick-fil-A’s local partner is a minority-owned business called Delarosa Restaurant.

Chick-fil-A might have won this small battle, but they are still facing the intolerant Left in cities like Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco. Political leaders want to bar their restaurants in these cities. Fortunately, Chick-fil-A was able to prevail in Denver.

Most successful non-profit organizations try to run with business world efficiency, but they are limited in many ways because of the funding models they must rely upon. Most of the men and women who serve on a board of trustees come from a business background, and they often cannot understand why the organization cannot be run just like a business.

Thomas Tierney recently tried to explain why non-profits often run differently from profit-making businesses. He used this thought experiment when he discovered that many CEOs of non-profits spend nearly half their time managing funding streams.

“Imagine if a typical CEO spent 2+ days a week with bankers, Wall Street analysts and venture capitalists. Now imagine that it took over 100 different sources to capitalize his business, and that none of them would ever commit to more than a single year’s funding. It would be like trying to drive from San Francisco to Boston on a gallon of gas at a time. You’d never be able to plan the fastest or most direct route and would always be looking for the next gas station.”

Thomas Tierney says that as he has “looked under the hood” of various non-profits. He has concluded that much of the balky performance is due to the donors. Often we give for personal reasons. If a family member dies of cancer, you are likely to give to the American Cancer Society. If your child made a commitment to Christ at a Christian camp, you are likely to support that camp or Christian ministry.

He also notes we often give to lots of organizations. “We need to avoid what I call ‘peanut butter philanthropy,’ spreading our resources too thin. We can’t save the world by giving one dollar to every worthwhile cause. We also need to invest in nonprofit infrastructure.”

All of this should not be an excuse for nonprofit organizations. They need to be effective and efficient. But they are different from businesses because of the funding models they rely upon.

The undercover hidden-camera interviews of Planned Parenthood have been dropped on the American public on a regular basis. About the only response from Planned Parenthood about the videos is that they were “heavily edited.” That response falls flat when you realize that the entire, uncut videos have been made available by the Center for Medical Progress.

The real editing of the videos (or should I say censoring) has actually been by the mainstream media. Here’s a good question. Have you seen any of these videos in the news? One of my guests from the Media Research Center estimated that ABC, CBS, and NBC spent four times as much time talking about the killing of Cecil the Lion in Zimbabwe as they did discussing the Planned Parenthood videos.

The combined total coverage of the videos for the three networks over these last few months has been 23 minutes. Brent Bozell digs deeper into those 23 minutes in a recent column. He found that the three networks “completely censored the actual video of the Planned Parenthood officials incriminating themselves.” He estimates that what you have seen from the actual videos was 73 seconds. CBS aired one minute of the footage. NBC devoted just 13 seconds to the videos. ABC never showed one second of the undercover videos.

This means that many Americans know nothing of Planned Parenthood officials talking about how they carefully crush the right parts of the baby in order to get the most body parts to sell. They have never seen people in a clinic sorting out those parts. They have never seen officials haggling over the price of whole babies or parts. They have never seen a tissue specialist admit that they sometimes take baby parts without the mother’s consent.

We shouldn’t be surprised then that a recent poll found that 53 percent of Americans had not heard of Planned Parenthood selling baby parts. And of the 47 percent that had heard something, 21 percent admitted they only heard “a little.” This is what happens when the news media censor a story.

I recently had former Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz on my radio program to talk about his new book, The Case Against the Iran Deal: How Can We Now Stop Iran from Getting Nukes? Although he has been a supporter of the president, he isn’t a supporter of this deal with Iran.

We talked about the threat a nuclear-armed Iran would be to the region and especially to Israel. We both questioned whether this deal was really a treaty. If this Iran deal is a treaty, then it would need two-thirds of the U.S. Senate to ratify it. Some big questions surfaced concerning sanctions and inspections.

Arizona Senator Jeff Flake says that even though “Congress has received assurances from the administration that it does not forfeit its ability to impose sanctions” he has found that “these assurances do not square with the text” of the Iran agreement. He believes the deal gives Iran lots of leverage that it currently does not have.

Some are critical of the administration’s willingness to abandon anytime, anywhere inspections. They are even more concerned that no Americans will be allowed on the inspection teams and that the other inspectors will have be vetted by Iranian intelligence.

Texas Senator John Cornyn has also been critical of the secret side deals. He says, “Trusting Iran to inspect its own nuclear site . . . is remarkably naïve and incredibly reckless.” Representative Ed Royce, chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, called the Iran agreement a “dangerous farce.”

Democrat New Jersey Senator Robert Menendez says “lifting the arms and missile embargo well before Iranian compliance” actually “leaves us in a weak position.” He believes that the Iran deal is based on hope. “Hope is part of human nature, but unfortunately it is not a national security strategy.”

In short, the Iran deal is not a good deal for Israel or America, and many members of Congress are willing to say so.

Donald Trump has been on the campaign trail saying that United States is losing jobs to China at an astounding rate. Whatever you may think of him, he is correct. A report from the Economic Policy Institute agues that the primary reason for the hemorrhaging of jobs is our growing trade deficit.

And it isn’t that we are just losing manufacturing jobs. We are. But we are also losing high-tech jobs faster than any other segment of the economy.

The numbers are staggering. Since China joined the World Trade Organization nearly 3 million jobs have been lost or displaced in the United States. Many of these are located in high-tech industry areas.

In the past, job losses were often concentrated in manufacturing. It was easy for politicians and economists to rationalize that such jobs would head overseas since it was cheaper to make widgets in China than in the U.S. But now we are confronted with reality that sophisticated electronics and high-tech products that once were made in this country are now being made in China.

There are many reasons for the trade deficit. A major cause is China’s currency manipulation. While that may sound like a technical, economic issue, its impact is quite simple. U.S. exports costs 40 percent more in China while Chinese exports to us cost 40 percent less.

Another reason is the simple fact that China pays wages that are substantially less than American wages. This not only reduces the cost of the products they produce, but it also depresses wages in this country. The indirect loss to American workers has been calculated to be approximately $1,400. China is the most important source of downward wage pressure.

Donald Trump isn’t the only candidate talking about job loss to China, but he is one of the few. This certainly deserves to be a campaign issue when millions of Americans are out of work.